Pierson Machine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 8, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 1169 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of PIERSON MACHINE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE 311, A. F. OF L.
Case No. R-4140.--Decided September 8,194
Jurisdiction : metal parts processing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition until certified by the Board; election
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em
ployees, including the shipping clerk, the two cribmen, drivers, stockmen, and
inspectors, but excluding clerical employees, watchmen, and supervisors with
the right to hire and discharge ; stipulation as to.
Mr. Eugene Kelly, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company.
Mr. Russell G. Benedict, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the I. A. M.
Mr. William C. Baisinyer, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Association of Machinists,
Lodge 311, affiliated with the American Fedeiation of Labor, herein
called the I. A. M., alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Pierson Machine
Company, Los Angeles, California, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing-
upon clue notice before Guy Farmer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing
was held at Los Angeles, California, on August 11, 1942. The Com-
pany and the I. A. M. appeared, participated, and were afforded full,
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing the Trial
Examiner reserved ruling upon a motion by the Company that the
petition be dismissed on the ground that the Company was not engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the'National Labor Relations Act.
Said motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and'are hereby affirmed.'-
43N.L R B, No. 182.
1169
481039-42-vol. 43-74
11
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Irwin A. Pierson; doing business as Pierson Machine Company, is
engaged in the operation of a machine shop at Los'Angeles, California.
The Company performs machine work and machine operations on
metal parts for aircraft , pursuant to, contracts with aircraft coin-
panies located in the State of California, which, in turn, use said
processed metal parts in the manufacture of aircraft which are sold
to the United States Government. Seventy-five percent of the air-
craft so manufactured is flown or transported to points outside the
State of California.
During the 12=month period preceding July 7, 1942, the Company
purchased for use in its plant machines valued at approximately
$33,000. This machinery was manufactured in the eastern part of the
United States and purchased by the Company through local agents
in California. During the same p'eriod the Company purchased cast-
ings, forgings, and bar stock valued at approximately $5,200, all of
which were purchased in the State of California. During the same
period the sales by the Company amounted to $465,000. Of this
amount, approximately $3,000 represented sales to customers located
outside the State of California; the remaining sales were made to
major aircraft companies located in the State of California. Of the
gross sales of the Company, 97 percent is derived from machine
operations on such materials; 3 percent of said sales is derived from,
operations in which the Company furnishes the raw materials.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Company, that it is en-
gaged 'in commerce within the meaning of the Act?
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Associ^i'tion of Machinists, Lodge 311, is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It'
admits to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In June of 1942 the-J. A. M. advised the Company that it repre-
sented a -majority of the Company's employees and requested recog-
1 See National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt , et al, 306 U . S. 601 ; Newport News
Shipbuilding (C Dry Dock Company v . National Labor Relations Board, -101 F. (2d) 841
C. C. A. 4). _
PIERSON MACHINE COMPANY 1171
nition. The ' Company refused to recognize the I. A. M. until it had
been certified by the Board.
,'A statement of the Regional Director introduced into evidence at the
hearing indicates that the I. A. M. represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in, accordance with a stipulation of the parties; that all
production and maintenance employees of the Company, including
the shipping clerk, the two cribnien, drivers, stockmen, and inspectors,
but excluding clerical employees,3 watchmen, and supervisors with
the right to hire and discharge,`' constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of, collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in `the' appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat . 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules ,and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as ' part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Pierson Machine
'The statement of the Regional Director shows that 'the I A. M submitted 27 authori-
zation- cards for meiubership in the I A M, 16 of which were signed during June, and
9 dining July 1942, and 2 were undated. All the signatures appear to be genuine original
signatures Of the 27 signatures , 23 are names of persons Whose names are on the
Company's pay roll of July 9, 1942, which contains 68 names
3 The following persons are considered clerical employees : Betty Merrill, filing clerk ;
Henrietle Woodward , stenographer ; J. K. Marvin , purchasing agent; and A. W. Kelly,
pioduction-contiol clerk
4 The following persons are considered supervisors with the right to hire and discharge
Irwin A . Pierson , owner; Eugene Kelly , adininistiative assistant to the owner; Paul
Thome , superintendent , and Glen Day , night foreman.
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, Los Angeles, California, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional -Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting in _this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the'unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were, employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date. of this Direction, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in
the active military service or training of the United States, or tempo-
rarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Association of Machinists, Lodge 311,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MILLis took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
0